For the first time, 18 American Muslim legal scholars have issued a formal fatwa condemning terrorism. A press release by the Muslim Public Affairs Council reports on yesterday's press conference at which the Fiqh Council of North America announced the ruling. Over 135 US Muslim organizations, mosques and leaders have endorsed the fatwa. Nihad Awad, Executive Director of the Council on American Islamic Relations said, "United, we can confront the terrorists and frustrate their goal of sparking an apocalyptic war between faiths and civilizations."
The full text of the Fatwa includes the following condemnation: "Islam strictly condemns religious extremism and the use of violence against innocent lives. There is no justification in Islam for extremism or terrorism. Targeting civilians' life and property through suicide bombings or any other method of attack is haram - prohibited in Islam - and those who commit these barbaric acts are criminals, not 'martyrs'."
It goes on to state: "In the light of the teachings of the Qur'an and Sunnah we clearly and strongly state: 1. All acts of terrorism targeting civilians are haram (forbidden) in Islam. 2. It is haram for a Muslim to cooperate with any individual or group that is involved in any act of terrorism or violence. 3. It is the civic and religious duty of Muslims to cooperate with law enforcement authorities to protect the lives of all civilians." [Interestingly, in an apparent transcription error, a purported full text posted by the Muslim Public Affairs Council omits this paragraph.]
A report by the Associated Press yesterday on the fatwa points out that unlike a similar ruling issued last week by British Muslim scholars, American scholars did not exclude suicide bombings in "occupied" countries like Iraq and Israel from the ruling's general condemnation. (See prior posting.)
Friday, July 29, 2005
US Representative Discusses Bombing Holy Sites In Response To Nuclear Terrorism
On a Florida radio talk show last week, US House of Representatives member Tom Tancredo, a Republican from Colorado and a member of the House International Relations Committee, angered Muslims by answering a rather hypothetical question. A press release issued by the Muslim Public Affairs Council reports the following colloquy:
After being asked what the U.S. should do in response to a nuclear attack on this country by "extremist fundamentalist Muslims." Tancredo said one possible response would be to "take out their holy sites." When Campbell asked if the congressman was "talking about bombing Mecca," Tancredo replied, "Yeah."
Muslim groups have called on Tancredo to apologize. The Denver Post reported yesterday that Tancredo said: "I'm not suggesting we do it. I have nothing to apologize for in that respect. I'm simply saying to have a good discussion on this issue, a thorough discussion on what is perhaps the most serious kind of possible situation we could face as a civilization, that you cannot simply take things off the table because they are uncomfortable to talk about."
After being asked what the U.S. should do in response to a nuclear attack on this country by "extremist fundamentalist Muslims." Tancredo said one possible response would be to "take out their holy sites." When Campbell asked if the congressman was "talking about bombing Mecca," Tancredo replied, "Yeah."
Muslim groups have called on Tancredo to apologize. The Denver Post reported yesterday that Tancredo said: "I'm not suggesting we do it. I have nothing to apologize for in that respect. I'm simply saying to have a good discussion on this issue, a thorough discussion on what is perhaps the most serious kind of possible situation we could face as a civilization, that you cannot simply take things off the table because they are uncomfortable to talk about."
Thursday, July 28, 2005
AF Academy Faculty Ask For Truce To Solve Religion Problem
This week's Chronicle of Higher Education carries an interesting article by Prof. Barry S. Fagin, a faculty member at the US Air Force Academy and president of its Faculty Forum. Titled Faith and Tolerance at the Air Force Academy, he focuses on the pressures felt by faculty who find themselves in the middle of the political hurricane created by charges of religious intolerance at the Academy. (Here are some prior postings on the situation: 1 , 2 ). Prof. Fagin pleads: "Resident faculty members of the academy, civilian and military, have the experience, ability, and will to solve this problem. But to do so, we need both sides to step away from Defcon 4 alert. Sheath the bayonets, put the legal briefs back in the drawer. Give us a climate where those of us responsible for shaping young minds are as free as possible."
Commentary On Governmental Definition of "True Religion"
Rick Garnett has an interesting posting on Prawfs Blog titled Government Statements About "True Religion". He focuses on Tony Blair's statements after the recent London bombings that the "true voice of Islam" has to be mobilized. He raises the difficult question of whether it is appropriate for government to declare what the true interpretation of a religion is. Of course, President Bush made very similar statements about the peaceful nature of true Islam after 9-11.
It seems to me that one of the core functions of the Establishment Clause-- one that is often overlooked-- is to prevent government from redefining or watering down religious doctrine. That was Roger Williams' position in 1644 when he wrote in The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution, For Cause of Conscience: "When they have opened a gap in the hedge of or wall of separation between the garden of the church, and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broken down the wall itself. . . and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day. And that therefore if He will ever please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world." -- By the way, this, and not Jefferson's Letter, is the origin of the famous "wall of separation" metaphor.
Government attempts to redefine religion in numerous subtle ways. One of my favorite examples is the seemingly innocuous issuance by the US Postal Service of the Hanukkah Stamp. This is a statement by government that the minor Jewish holiday of Hanukkah is really Judaism's important celebration. It is the one that deserves recognition. Never mind, for example, about Rosh Hashanah where there is a stronger tradition of sending greeting cards through the mail.
Those who see the Establishment Clause as a threat to religion should consider the prospect of a prayer book that has been written by Congress or a state legislature after hearings that result in all the political compromise found in most legislation.
It seems to me that one of the core functions of the Establishment Clause-- one that is often overlooked-- is to prevent government from redefining or watering down religious doctrine. That was Roger Williams' position in 1644 when he wrote in The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution, For Cause of Conscience: "When they have opened a gap in the hedge of or wall of separation between the garden of the church, and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broken down the wall itself. . . and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day. And that therefore if He will ever please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world." -- By the way, this, and not Jefferson's Letter, is the origin of the famous "wall of separation" metaphor.
Government attempts to redefine religion in numerous subtle ways. One of my favorite examples is the seemingly innocuous issuance by the US Postal Service of the Hanukkah Stamp. This is a statement by government that the minor Jewish holiday of Hanukkah is really Judaism's important celebration. It is the one that deserves recognition. Never mind, for example, about Rosh Hashanah where there is a stronger tradition of sending greeting cards through the mail.
Those who see the Establishment Clause as a threat to religion should consider the prospect of a prayer book that has been written by Congress or a state legislature after hearings that result in all the political compromise found in most legislation.
Alberta to Protect Officials With Religious Objections to Performing Gay Marriage
Now that Canada has recognized same-sex marriages, individual provinces are concerned about protecting marriage commissioners who have religious scruples against performing such ceremonies. (See earlier posting.) Alberta Justice Minister Ron Stevens has promised to introduce legislation to shield commissioners from human rights complaints in such cases, even if it means invoking the "notwithstanding clause" of Sec. 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that permits laws to override the Charter, subject to re-enactment every 5 years. Today's Globe and Mail reports on these developments and says that the Canadian federal government is unlikely to oppose such a law. In Alberta, use of the "notwithstanding clause" requires a province-wide referendum. A marriage minister in Manitoba has already been sued by a gay couple after he refused to perform a wedding ceremony for them.
Opinion Available in PA Muslim Firefighter's Case
A previous posting noted the first interpretation of Pennsylvania's Religious Freedom Protection Act by a Philadelphia trial court. It granted a preliminary injunction to a Muslim firefighter to permit him to return to his job without shaving his beard. The court's opinion supplementing its earlier memorandum is now available. Deveaux v. City of Philadelphia, 2005 Phila. Ct. Com. Pl. LEXIS 331 (July 14, 2005).
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Rastafarians' Conviction For Possessing Marijuana In Natl. Park Upheld; Sentence Vacated
Last week, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued an interesting opinion in an appeal of a federal Magistrate Judge's opinion in United States v. Forchion, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14791 (July 22, 2005). Defendants who are Rastafarians, were convicted under federal law of smoking marijuana in Philadelphia's Independence National Historical Park. 36 CFR 2.35 prohibits the possession of any controlled substance in a National Park. Defendants claimed that smoking marijuana is a "sacrament" in their religion, akin to a Christian's consumption of wine at communion. They claimed that their conviction violated their Free Exercise rights as protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The court upheld their conviction, holding that "With so many alternative places to practice Rastafarianism, the ban on marijuana possession in national parks does not force [defendants] to choose between abandoning their faith and facing criminal prosecution."
In sentencing defendants, the Magistrate Judge placed them on probation, but imposed a number of conditions that totally prohibit them from possessing or using controlled substances. The court vacated the sentence and remanded the case to the Magistrate Judge to consider the "thorny constitutional and statutory questions that the six conditions raise".
One aspect of this decision merits comment. While the court is correct that the challenged regulation does not preclude defendants using marijuana in their homes, places of worship or other non-federal locations, those uses would likely violate state law and, after City of Boerne v. Flores, RFRA would not protect defendants in a state law prosecution.
In sentencing defendants, the Magistrate Judge placed them on probation, but imposed a number of conditions that totally prohibit them from possessing or using controlled substances. The court vacated the sentence and remanded the case to the Magistrate Judge to consider the "thorny constitutional and statutory questions that the six conditions raise".
One aspect of this decision merits comment. While the court is correct that the challenged regulation does not preclude defendants using marijuana in their homes, places of worship or other non-federal locations, those uses would likely violate state law and, after City of Boerne v. Flores, RFRA would not protect defendants in a state law prosecution.
CLS At SIU Appeals Denial of Preliminary Injunction
Yesterday, the Christian Legal Society at Southern Illinois University School of Law filed an appeal with the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the trial court's July 5 denial of preliminary injunction. Alliance Defense Fund announced the appeal that is discussed in this AP report. SIU claims that the CLS requirement that its voting members and leaders adhere to basic Christian beliefs, including beliefs on sexuality, violates the university's affirmative action policy. This is one of a series of cases filed by CLS around th country to challenge university rules that require student groups to admit gays and lesbians to membership on an equal basis. (See prior posting.) Links to the pleadings and opinion in the district court, and to the notice of appeal, are on Jeremy Richey's Blawg.
This Week's New Church-State Articles
From SmartCILP:
Amy Stambach, Rallying the Armies or Bridging the Gulf: Questioning the Significance of Faith-Based Educational Initiatives In a Global Age, 12 Indiana Jour. of Global Legal Studies 205-226 (2005).
Roundtable Discussion: Religious Organizations Filing for Bankruptcy. Moderator: Hon. Bruce A. Markell; Samuel J. Gerdano, Douglas Laycock, Jonathan Lipson, Nancy Peterman, Robin Phelan and David Skeel. 13 Am. Bankr. Inst. L. Rev. 25-57 (2005).
Vol. XX, Issue No. 1, of the Hamline University Journal of Law and Religion has been issued. A preliminary table of contents is available online.
From SSRN:
Richard W. Garnett, American Conversation With(in) Catholicism, 102 Mich. L. Rev. 1191 (May 2004).
Amy Stambach, Rallying the Armies or Bridging the Gulf: Questioning the Significance of Faith-Based Educational Initiatives In a Global Age, 12 Indiana Jour. of Global Legal Studies 205-226 (2005).
Roundtable Discussion: Religious Organizations Filing for Bankruptcy. Moderator: Hon. Bruce A. Markell; Samuel J. Gerdano, Douglas Laycock, Jonathan Lipson, Nancy Peterman, Robin Phelan and David Skeel. 13 Am. Bankr. Inst. L. Rev. 25-57 (2005).
_________
Vol. XX, Issue No. 1, of the Hamline University Journal of Law and Religion has been issued. A preliminary table of contents is available online.
__________
From SSRN:
Richard W. Garnett, American Conversation With(in) Catholicism, 102 Mich. L. Rev. 1191 (May 2004).
FL Faith-Based Advisory Board Challenged Under Blaine Amendment
The Tallahassee Democrat reports this morning on a suit filed in Leon County Circuit Court challenging the activities of the Governor's Faith Based and Community Advisory Board. The Council for Secular Humanism, one of the plaintiffs, argues that the activities violate the provisions in Art. I, Sec. 3 of Florida's Constitution that prohibit direct or indirect use of state funds to aid any church, sect, religious denomination or sectarian institution.
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
White House Plans Summit on Grants for Faith-Based Organizations
Yesterday, a White House press briefing by Jim Towey, Director of the Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives, announced the President had met with 20 African-American leaders of the faith community. During that meeting, the President announced plans for a White House summit in March to discuss private-sector policies that often prevent faith-based organizations from qualifying for corporate and foundation grants. Many granting organizations currently rule out grants to all faith-based organizations, or require grantees to have 501(c)(3) status, which many churches do not have.
Kabbalists Place Death Curse on Ariel Sharon
Ynet News reports today that some 20 right-wing activists opposed to Israel's pullout from the Gaza Strip recently performed a Kabbalistic ceremony called Pulsa Dinura, at which they called for "angels of destruction" to kill Ariel Sharon. Supposedly authorized by rabbis, the ceremony took place at the ancient cemetery in Rosh Pina. Rabbi Yosef Dayan of the West Bank settlement of Psagot described the ceremony: "The rabbis ordered that those participating in the event must be married (no widowers or divorcees), over 40 years of age and bearded. Everyone was dressed in black, except for one person who was dressed in white." He went on to say that two hours before the ceremony, questions were raised regarding Sharon’s religion. The ceremony may be conducted only against a person who is recognized by traditional Jewish law as being Jewish. “The kabbalist rabbis told us not to do it, but eventually we decided to perform the ceremony, as in any case Sharon is considered by the public to be Jewish.”
Baruch Ben-Yosef, an attorney who was present at the ceremony said: "We said the prayer near the grave of (hanged pre-state activist) Shlomo Ben-Yosef - the most suitable site - as he is Sharon’s antithesis. Ben-Yosef sacrificed his soul for the people of Israel, while Sharon is robbing the nation. We hope the lord will take him from us."
Baruch Ben-Yosef, an attorney who was present at the ceremony said: "We said the prayer near the grave of (hanged pre-state activist) Shlomo Ben-Yosef - the most suitable site - as he is Sharon’s antithesis. Ben-Yosef sacrificed his soul for the people of Israel, while Sharon is robbing the nation. We hope the lord will take him from us."
Subpoena Against Archdiocese Upheld Against Constitutional Attack
In a long opinion issued yesterday in Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, a California court of appeals upheld a grand jury subpoena directed to the Archdiocese for numerous documents needed in the grand jury's deliberations over whether to indict two priests for sexually molesting children while they worked for the Archdiocese. The Archdiocese raised defenses under the free exercise clauses of the US and California constitutions, under the establishment clause of the US Constitution, various claims of privilege and other defenses. The court found that only one of the numerous documents was protected from discovery by the grand jury. Among other holdings, the court found that the rule in Employment Division v. Smith applies to the federal free exercise challenge to the production of documents.
Is The Issue Terrorism Or Taxes?
In his Sunday sermon on July 24, Pope Benedict XVI condemned "the execrable terrorist attacks which caused death, destruction, and violence in different countries including Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, and Britain", but did not mention the the attack that took place Netanya in Israel on July 12. Yesterday, Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs summoned the Vatican ambassador to convey a strong statement condemning the omission. Today the Italian publication Asia News alleges that the Foreign Ministry statement was really a smokescreen for Israel's cancellation of planned negotiations with the Vatican on a new treaty to confirm the Church's tax exemptions and property rights in Israel. However it offers no explanation for the omission of Israel in the Pope's sermon.
Prisoner Claim On Denial of Ramadan Accommodation Moves Ahead
Yesterday in Conyers v. Abitz, the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals permitted a prisoner's claim against Wisconsin prison officials to move forward, rejecting the state's claim that his grievance was not filed in a timely manner as well as other defenses. While serving time in prison segregation, Conyers asked for late bagged dinners during the Fast of Ramadan. He was told that the deadline to sign up for them had passed. The sign-up deadline had been published in the prison's daily bulletin, but Conyers did not have access to that bulletin while in segregation.
Roberts and Recusal
The impact of Judge John Roberts' Roman Catholic religious beliefs on his performance as a Supreme Court Justice has become the focus of much attention. In yesterday's Los Angeles Times, an op-ed by Jonathan Turley reported on an exchange that occurred during an informal meeting between Roberts and Illinois Senator Richard Durbin. Asked what he would do if he faced a conflict between what the law required and what his Church considered immoral, Roberts supposedly, after a long pause, said he would probably recuse himself in the case. Today the Washington Times reports that Durbin's office disputes Turley's account. Durbin's press secretary Joe Shoemaker said that Durbin never asked that question and Roberts never said he would recuse himself in such a case. Turley however says he confirmed the story with Shoemaker before he wrote his article.
Whatever in fact happened, perhaps the more interesting question is what a sincere Catholic judge should do when a case calls on him or her to make a ruling that violates important teachings of the Church. There has been a lively discussion of this issue on Mirror of Justice blog, including this posting. Also related to the controversy is an interesting article in an issue of last year's Catholic Lawyer by St. Thomas Law School faculty members Gregory C. Sisk & Charles J. Reid, Jr., Abortion, Bishops, Eucharist, and Politicians: A Question of Communion.
Whatever in fact happened, perhaps the more interesting question is what a sincere Catholic judge should do when a case calls on him or her to make a ruling that violates important teachings of the Church. There has been a lively discussion of this issue on Mirror of Justice blog, including this posting. Also related to the controversy is an interesting article in an issue of last year's Catholic Lawyer by St. Thomas Law School faculty members Gregory C. Sisk & Charles J. Reid, Jr., Abortion, Bishops, Eucharist, and Politicians: A Question of Communion.
Monday, July 25, 2005
Most Iraqi Jews In Israel Precluded From Recovering Citizenship By Draft Iraqi Constitution
One of the issues that has been largely under-reported in connection with the draft Iraqi constitution is its provisions that effectively deny most Iraqi Jews who emigrated to Israel the right to reclaim their Iraqi citizenship. The issue is mentioned in an article in today's Conservative Voice. A June 30 draft of the constitution (see post on Jihad Watch) specifically precluded anyone holding Israeli citizenship from obtaining Iraqi citizenship or holding dual citizenship with Iraq. In the July 20 draft of the Constitution, those specific references to Israel have been removed. However the new draft still effectively limits the ability of most Iraqi Jews in Israel to automatically regain citizenship because of the date they left Iraq. Most of them left and went to Israel in the 1950's. Chapter Two, Sec. 4 of the new draft Constititon provides: "An Iraqi who was stripped of his citizenship after February 8, 1968 for any reason is considered Iraqi and is entitled to regain [his citizenship]." A full text of both drafts is available from the Carnegie Endowment. The translator points out that the Feb. 8 date may be a drafting error. Presumably the intent was to focus on the date that Saddam's Baathist Party came to power, which was July 1968.
"Peace Tax Seven" In UK Told To Go To Strasbourg
In England, a group of conscientious objectors known as the "peace tax seven" have been trying to get the Treasury to stop using their tax money for military spending. (Full text of letters between Treasury and protesters.) (Text of plaintiffs' petition in the Administrative court.) Appearing in the Royal Courts of Justice , attorneys for the protesters argued that refusal to set up a special account for the protesters' tax payments violated the European Convention on Human Rights. According to a report in today's Guardian, Mr. Justice Collins said that the former European Commission on Human Rights had decided the issue against conscientious objectors two decades ago. Any reconsideration would require a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. In order to expedite the parties' exhaustion of domestic courts before filing in the European Court, Justice Collins refused the seven leave to seek judicial review.
Falwell Cleared By IRS and FEC
Last year during a chapel service at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas , Rev. Jerry Falwell urged support for the re-election of President George W. Bush. This led to complaints about Falwell's political activities being filed with the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Election Commission. The complaint to the IRS, filed by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, claimed that Falwell’s endorsement of Bush violated the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary’s tax-exempt status.
Today the Lynchburg, Virginia News & Advance reports that both federal agencies have dismissed those complaints. Falwell was represented by Liberty Counsel. Its president, Mathew D. Staver, reacted to the ruling: "Personal statements by an invited speaker expressing their views regarding political candidates do not violate the IRS Tax Code." Falwell's reaction was: "As I see it, while we can’t call it a legal precedent, it is clear that the IRS has determined that pastors have the same First Amendment rights as newspapers. I think this gives pastors free sailing to speak their minds on candidates." [Thanks to Becky Dale via Religionlaw listserv for the information.]
Today the Lynchburg, Virginia News & Advance reports that both federal agencies have dismissed those complaints. Falwell was represented by Liberty Counsel. Its president, Mathew D. Staver, reacted to the ruling: "Personal statements by an invited speaker expressing their views regarding political candidates do not violate the IRS Tax Code." Falwell's reaction was: "As I see it, while we can’t call it a legal precedent, it is clear that the IRS has determined that pastors have the same First Amendment rights as newspapers. I think this gives pastors free sailing to speak their minds on candidates." [Thanks to Becky Dale via Religionlaw listserv for the information.]
Christian Exodus Movement Targets South Carolina
South Carolina has become the target of the Christian Exodus Movement. The Philadelphia Inquirer this morning reports on the group's strategy: move thousands of conservative Christians to South Carolina to elect like-minded state and local officials. The Action Plan on the group's website lays out this initial strategy: "The first move of ChristianExodus.org members has commenced. Our research committee selected two city/county combinations for Phase One. We believe we can reestablish constitutionally limited government in these two counties with the relocation of 500 Christians to one and 2,000 to the other. That number of activist emigres, when combined with the present Christian electorate, will enable constitutionalists to win the city council, the county council, elected law enforcement positions, and elected judgeships. We will then be able to protect our God-given and constitutionally protected rights within our local community."
The group's website lists eleven areas in which they hope to act, including outlawing abortion, gay marriage and teaching of evolution in the schools; restoring school prayer, public posting of the Ten Commandments; promoting gun rights, rights of fathers in child custody cases and protection of private property from arbitrary government seizure. Another page on its website argues that the 14th Amendment was fraudulently enacted, and that the 16th amendment (permitting a federal income tax) and 17th Amendment (requiring direct election of US Senators) should be repealed. The ultimate plan is to secede if the federal government interferes with their state and local agenda.
The Philadelphia Inquirer reports, however, that so far only 5 families have actually moved to South Carolina as a result of the organization's efforts.
The group's website lists eleven areas in which they hope to act, including outlawing abortion, gay marriage and teaching of evolution in the schools; restoring school prayer, public posting of the Ten Commandments; promoting gun rights, rights of fathers in child custody cases and protection of private property from arbitrary government seizure. Another page on its website argues that the 14th Amendment was fraudulently enacted, and that the 16th amendment (permitting a federal income tax) and 17th Amendment (requiring direct election of US Senators) should be repealed. The ultimate plan is to secede if the federal government interferes with their state and local agenda.
The Philadelphia Inquirer reports, however, that so far only 5 families have actually moved to South Carolina as a result of the organization's efforts.
Judge Roberts and the "Catholic Card"
Last Wednesday in the liberal magazine American Prospect, Adele M. Stan's article Meet John Roberts focused in part on the religon of the new Supreme Court nominee:
"In choosing a Roman Catholic, Bush is betting he’s bought himself some insulation -- any opposition to Roberts, particularly because of his anti-abortion record, will likely be countered with accusations of anti-Catholicism. A timely pitch, one must say, to conservative Catholic voters prior to the midterm elections. Make no mistake, though: Sterling credentials or not, John Roberts should not be confirmed for a seat on the Supreme Court. He has demonstrated too little respect for the ideals of the Constitution’s Framers. Democrats owe it to those who have stood by them, through thick and thin, to oppose this nomination. So go to it, Senators Durbin, Leahy, Kennedy, and Biden. Don’t vote to let this nomination out of the Judiciary Committee on which you sit. Millions of liberal Catholics, and Americans of all stripes, are counting on you to vote your conscience."
The same day, Catholic League President William Donohue responded: “The fact that Jew baiting did not accompany the nominations of Ginsburg and Breyer shows how this nation has progressed. Unfortunately, within 24 hours of Roberts’ nomination, Catholic baiting has raised its ugly head. And the fact that it is coming from a mainstream liberal source is even more disconcerting. We hope this is not the beginning of an ugly few months.”
"In choosing a Roman Catholic, Bush is betting he’s bought himself some insulation -- any opposition to Roberts, particularly because of his anti-abortion record, will likely be countered with accusations of anti-Catholicism. A timely pitch, one must say, to conservative Catholic voters prior to the midterm elections. Make no mistake, though: Sterling credentials or not, John Roberts should not be confirmed for a seat on the Supreme Court. He has demonstrated too little respect for the ideals of the Constitution’s Framers. Democrats owe it to those who have stood by them, through thick and thin, to oppose this nomination. So go to it, Senators Durbin, Leahy, Kennedy, and Biden. Don’t vote to let this nomination out of the Judiciary Committee on which you sit. Millions of liberal Catholics, and Americans of all stripes, are counting on you to vote your conscience."
The same day, Catholic League President William Donohue responded: “The fact that Jew baiting did not accompany the nominations of Ginsburg and Breyer shows how this nation has progressed. Unfortunately, within 24 hours of Roberts’ nomination, Catholic baiting has raised its ugly head. And the fact that it is coming from a mainstream liberal source is even more disconcerting. We hope this is not the beginning of an ugly few months.”
Couple To Be Sentenced In Death of Infant Denied Antibiotics In Favor of Prayer
The Associated Press reported Sunday on the upcoming August 12 sentencing of Indiana parents who insisted on praying for their seriously ill newborn instead of seeking medical assistance for her. The child died less than two days after she was born from an infection that was treatable with antibiotics. The parents, Dewayne and Maleta Schmidt were convicted in May of reckless homicide. They could be sentenced to up to 8 years in prison; however they are asking for probation and monitoring by a child welfare agency so they will not be separated from their two other children. The couple who belong to the General Assembly and Church of the Firstborn at Morgantown say they would do the same thing again, even though their church does not totally prohibit medical treatment. It merely encourages prayer and faith healing.
Sunday, July 24, 2005
Mega-Churches vs. NJ Zoning Authorities
The Bridgewater, New Jersey Courier-News today carries a long and interesting article on the clashes between zoning authorities and mega-churches in the Northeast, and particularly in New Jersey. It is a useful examination of the strong feelings on both sides, and of the leverage that the RLIUPA gives to churches in these battles. In a separate article, the paper reports on proposed changes in Bridgewater's Master Plan to require larger lot sizes for "accessory uses" of property by religious institutions, such as gymnasiums and child care centers.
Dispute Over Control Of CA Mosque Moves To Court
A feud between two factions over control of a mosque in Lodi,California has now made its way to the courtroom in Stockton, California, according to a report in Friday's Lodi News-Sentinel. The judge continued the case until August 12. The major legal issue, according to an earlier report by the News-Sentinel seems to be whether Mosque President Mohammad Shoaib resigned his position, or merely threatened to do so. That in turn is unclear because the alleged resignation letter was written in Urdu, the language spoken in Shoaib's native Pakistan. (July 13 Tracy Press story.) If Shoaib had resigned, then his firing of the mosque's imam, Shabbir Ahmed, would not be valid. Shoaib claims he fired the imam two days after the clergyman told an immigration judge in San Francisco that he had once made speeches in Pakistan supporting the Taliban’s efforts against the United States. Shoaib also removed four of the mosque's board members.
Plaintiffs challenging Shoaib's actions are represented by high profile attorney Brian Chavez-Ochoa who says that the suit is necessary to keep the mosque in compliance with state corporation law and its own bylaws. "This is just about the corporation," Chavez-Ochoa said. "If we don't seize control, the state of California could suspend the status of the (mosque) corporation." The mosque has also been the subject of national attention because two of its members were arrested in June in an FBI terrorism investigation. (Detroit News report.)
Plaintiffs challenging Shoaib's actions are represented by high profile attorney Brian Chavez-Ochoa who says that the suit is necessary to keep the mosque in compliance with state corporation law and its own bylaws. "This is just about the corporation," Chavez-Ochoa said. "If we don't seize control, the state of California could suspend the status of the (mosque) corporation." The mosque has also been the subject of national attention because two of its members were arrested in June in an FBI terrorism investigation. (Detroit News report.)
Friday, July 22, 2005
The 10 Commandments Rulings As They Are Implemented On The Ground
As we have learned many times over the decades, even when the Supreme Court rules on a matter, it is not clear that "in the trenches" there is compliance. And so it seems with this story today from WKYT in Lexington, Kentucky:
"Crittenden County officials endorsed a Baptist preacher's plans to put a Ten Commandments monument on the courthouse grounds in western Kentucky. The Rev. Tony Alexander, pastor of Glendale General Baptist Church, intends to raise money to donate the monument. 'Christian people need to take a stand,' he said. The $1,200, six-foot granite tablet inscribed with the commandments will be placed on the lawn near another monument at the courthouse 45 miles northeast of Paducah. The county Fiscal Court approved Alexander's plans Tuesday. 'These are the laws God handed down,' Alexander said. 'If we can't abide by them, the local laws aren't worth much.'"
And then, in what might be seen as the understatement of the year: "Judge-Executive Fred Brown said the monument will probably be placed near several historical displays, and since the commandments would also be considered a historical marker, Brown said he hopes no one will object to them. 'But if they do, they do,' he said. 'We don't have any control over that. ... I would hope that no one would object, but you never know with this kind of thing.'"
Meanwhile, in a protest that raises no constitutional problems, funeral homes and a tire store in Bullit County, just south of Louisville, are handing out Ten Commandments yard signs for people to put up in front of their homes or businesses.
"Crittenden County officials endorsed a Baptist preacher's plans to put a Ten Commandments monument on the courthouse grounds in western Kentucky. The Rev. Tony Alexander, pastor of Glendale General Baptist Church, intends to raise money to donate the monument. 'Christian people need to take a stand,' he said. The $1,200, six-foot granite tablet inscribed with the commandments will be placed on the lawn near another monument at the courthouse 45 miles northeast of Paducah. The county Fiscal Court approved Alexander's plans Tuesday. 'These are the laws God handed down,' Alexander said. 'If we can't abide by them, the local laws aren't worth much.'"
And then, in what might be seen as the understatement of the year: "Judge-Executive Fred Brown said the monument will probably be placed near several historical displays, and since the commandments would also be considered a historical marker, Brown said he hopes no one will object to them. 'But if they do, they do,' he said. 'We don't have any control over that. ... I would hope that no one would object, but you never know with this kind of thing.'"
Meanwhile, in a protest that raises no constitutional problems, funeral homes and a tire store in Bullit County, just south of Louisville, are handing out Ten Commandments yard signs for people to put up in front of their homes or businesses.
Should Test Oath Clause Limit Scope of Roberts Questioning?
Judge John Roberts' position on abortion rights promises to be a major focus in the upcoming Supreme Court confirmation hearings in the Senate. As the media speculates about the impact of his Roman Catholic faith on his views about Roe v. Wade, over on the Religionlaw listserv there is an interesting discussion on whether there are Constitutional objections to asking him about his religious beliefs. Do the provisions of Art. VI, Clause 3: "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States", limit the Senate's right to question him about the impact of his religious beliefs? Here is the beginning of the discussion thread.
Canada Enacts Law Permitting Gay Marriage, Protecting Religious Objections
Canada on Wednesday became the fourth country to officially recognize gay marriage as the Senate passed Bill C-38 (Washington Blade ) and the act received royal assent (RedNova News).
The new statute contains two provisions specifically protecting the religious freedom of those who object to gay unions: "officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs" and "no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom."
The full text and legislative history of the Act is available online.
The new statute contains two provisions specifically protecting the religious freedom of those who object to gay unions: "officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs" and "no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom."
The full text and legislative history of the Act is available online.
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Another Link To Religion Clause Brief of Roberts
In a posting on Tuesday, I called attention to an article that reviewed and linked to the religion clause briefs that SCOTUS nominee John G. Roberts co-authored when he was at the Department of Justice. Oglethorpe University Prof. Joseph Knippenberg points out to me that the article only links to Roberts' brief on the petition for cert. in Lee v. Weisman, and he furnishes this link to Roberts' merits brief in the case: http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/1990/sg900105.txt
Christian Dalits Seek Same Benefits In India As Dalits of Other Faiths
Bellevision Global carries a long report today on the struggle in India of Dalits (formerly known as "untouchables") who are now Christians to obtain many of the special rights granted by law to Dalits of Hindu, Sikh and Buddhist faiths. A Public Hearing on their plight was held the day before the Supreme Court of India will hear an appeal by the Public Litigation Centre on the Constitutional validity of existing legislation that grants those rights on the basis of religious faith. The so-called "People's Tribunal" headed by former Indian Supreme Court Justice SB Sawant concluded: "It is necessary that the Christian Dalits are given the same benefits aids and advantages, facilities and opportunities as are given to Dalits of Hindus, Sikhs and Neo Buddhists on the basis of caste to which they belong before conversion and which they are carrying even today."
Proposal Will Repeal Victoria's Ban On Witchcraft
In the Australian state of Victoria, the attorney general has introduced legislation to repeal the Vagrancy Act which, among other things, bans witchcraft and fortune-telling. In a report today in The Age, Gavin Andrew, Victorian coordinator for the Pagan Awareness Network, is quoted as saying that the repeal will make it clear that Victoria's Racial and Religious Tolerance Act applies to pagans and witches. Some of the other provisions in the Vagrancy Act will be the subject of new legislation, according to a report in Stuff.
1st Amendment Claim In PBS Radio Station Sale
There is quite a battle going on in Orange County, California over the decision by the cash-strapped Coast Community College District to sell off its Public Television Station, KOCE. It rejected a $40 million cash bid in favor of a much lower one from the KOCE Foundation that would keep the station as part of the PBS system. Last month in Word of God Fellowship, Inc. v. Coast Community College District, 2005 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5454 (CA Ct. App., June 23, 2005) an appellate court invalidated the sale, holding that the reason for the acceptance of the lower bid was that the high bid came from a group of televagelists. In reversing the trial court, the court of appeals said: "In essence, this means a new sale -- or, if the district's trustees find that the prospect of televangelists eventually acquiring KOCE to be too distasteful, no sale at all. As we have shown they certainly have at least that discretion under the statute. But if they do sell, it must be a fair sale to the highest cash bidder, with no favoritism as regards bidding deadlines."
Today, the Los Angeles Times reports that the high bidder, Daystar Television Network, in another attempt to buy the station, will file suit in federal court for damages arguing that its free exercise of religion rights were violated when the college district refused to sell to it. The suit claims that the defendants' actions were "designed to interfere with the plaintiff's right to acquire KOCE-TV based solely on the fact that plaintiff is a religious organization" and that its "programming [is] designed to promote and disseminate Christian tenets, teachings, beliefs and values."
Today, the Los Angeles Times reports that the high bidder, Daystar Television Network, in another attempt to buy the station, will file suit in federal court for damages arguing that its free exercise of religion rights were violated when the college district refused to sell to it. The suit claims that the defendants' actions were "designed to interfere with the plaintiff's right to acquire KOCE-TV based solely on the fact that plaintiff is a religious organization" and that its "programming [is] designed to promote and disseminate Christian tenets, teachings, beliefs and values."
Daylight Savings Proposal Creates Religious Conflict For Jews
The Orthodox Jewish Institute for Public Affairs issued a release yesterday opposing the provision in the pending federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 that would extend Daylight Savings Time by two months. The time shift would be extended to run from early March to late November. The Orthodox Union is concerned that pushing sunrise back to 8:00 AM or later in some parts of the country will create religious problems for Orthodox Jews. The time for morning prayers (Shacharit service) is tied to sunrise time. In some places, this will make it impossible for individuals to say those prayers before their workday begins. Similar issues already arise in mid-winter months when sunrise is late.
MA Prisoner Free Exercise Claim Moves Ahead In Part
An opinion in a prisoner Free Exercise case decided by a state trial court in Massachusetts last month has just become available. Jackson v. Verdini, 2005 Mass. Super. LEXIS 279 (June 9, 2005) involved a challenge by two Muslim prisoners claiming that they were entitled to have Friday Jumuah services led by an Imam every week, instead of every second week as the prison was doing. One of the prisoners, a male, also claimed the right not to be patted down by female guards except in an emergency. The court held that the prisoners had exhausted their administrative remedies. It also held that the provision in 42 USC 1997e(e) precluding a damage action for mental or emotional injury without showing physical injury does not apply here, because a Free Exercise claim is a claim for violation of intangible rights. However the court dismissed the prisoners' claim for monetary damages under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act (G.L.c. 12, §§ 11(H) & 11(I)), because defendant was protected by sovereign immunity.
More on Roberts and Religion Clauses
Nathan Diamant wrote a column for Beliefnet yesterday, giving his fairly upbeat interpretation of the scant evidence we have about Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts' views on First Amendment religion issues. (See earlier related posting.) Commenting on the brief that Roberts wrote as Deputy Solicitor General in Lee v. Weisman, Diamant said: "the brief made a mainstream legal argument in support of the non-denominational prayer at issue in the case, which was offered at a junior high school graduation by a rabbi. The argument, essentially, was that such a prayer was in the tradition of many non-denominational invocations which take place at public ceremonies. This tradition, the brief argued, coupled with the fact that students were not required to attend the graduation ceremony, meant that the prayer did not constitute an 'establishment of religion' as barred by the First Amendment. Four of the nine justices agreed with this view, and its underlying arguments have been incorporated into the jurisprudence in subsequent cases--hardly a radical position."
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Another Chapter In Battle Over LA School Prayer
The Associated Press reported today on another chapter in the long-running litigation over prayer in various school functions in the Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana schools. (See prior posting.) According to the story, federal district court Judge Ginger Berrigan found that the teacher did not violate an outstanding consent decree when she held a before-school Bible club, encouraged students to bring their Bibles to school and led students in a silent prayer following the Pledge of Allegiance. The existing order only prohibits prayer at "school sponsored events" such as athletic events, prayers over the public announcement system and during school assemblies. The ACLU says it is now considering a separate suit over the activities of fourth-grade teacher Pamela Sullivan.
In Bahrain, Women-Only Colleges Approved At Request of Islamists
The Arab Times reported yesterday that Bahrain's parliament has approved a draft law to set up women-only colleges as part of the country's university system. This was in response to Islamist demands for separation of the sexes in colleges.
Iraq Constitution Draft Gives Shariah Greater Role
A working draft of the new constitution being put together for Iraq reveals a much greater role for Islamic law than the Interim Constitution, according to a report today in the New York Times. The new constitution guarantees equal rights for women as long as those rights do not "violate Shariah," or Koranic law. It would also require court cases dealing with marriage, divorce and inheritance to be judged according to the law practiced by the family's sect or religion. This would repeal a liberal personal status law enacted in Iraq in 1959. The new provision would mean that Shiite women, regardless of age, would need permission of their families to marry, and might be subject to divorce at the will or their husbands.
However the fate of the new constitution is in some doubt as two Sunni members of the drafting committee were assassinated Tuesday afternoon, according to the New York Times.
However the fate of the new constitution is in some doubt as two Sunni members of the drafting committee were assassinated Tuesday afternoon, according to the New York Times.
A Wealth of New Scholarship
From SmartCILP this week, a wealth of new scholarship:
Enrique Armijo, Belief Behind Bars: Religious Freedom in Prison, RLUIPA, and the Establishment Clause, 31 New England Jour. on Criminal & Civil Confinement 297-330 (2005).
Kristen A. Carpenter, Considering Individual Religious Freedoms Under Tribal Constitutional Law, 14 Kansas Jour. of Law & Public Policy 561-606 (2005).
Angela Fernandez, Record-Keeping and Other Trouble Making: Thomas Lechford and Law Reform in Colonial Massachusetts, 23 Law & History Review 235-277 (2005).
Roger Williams Law Review hosts a Symposium--Religious Liberty in America and Beyond: Celebrating the Legacy of Roger Williams on the 400th Anniversary of His Birth. Articles in it are:
Edward J. Eberle, Introduction, 10 Roger Wms. U. L. Rev. 279-287 (2005).
Edward J. Eberle, Roger Williams on Liberty of Conscience, 10 Roger Wms. U. L. Rev. 289-323 (2005).
Steven D. Smith, The Tenuous Case for Conscience, 10 Roger Wms. U. L. Rev. 325-358 (2005),
Kathleen A. Brady, Foundations for Freedom of Conscience: Stronger Than You Might Think, 10 Roger Wms. U. L. Rev. 359-384 (2005).
Michael J. Perry, A Right to Religious Freedom? The Universality of Human Rights, The Relativity of Culture, 10 Roger Wms. U. L. Rev. 385-425 (2005).
Richard S. Kay, Michael Perry's Right to Religious Freedom, 10 Roger Wms. U. L. Rev. 427-438 (2005).
Jonatas E.M.Machado, Freedom of Conscience and the Rights of Non-TOTFers, 10 Roger Wms. U. L. Rev. 439-449 (2005).
Jonatas E.M.Machado, Freedom of Religion: A View From Europe, 10 Roger Wms. U. L. Rev. 451-535 (2005).
Enrique Armijo, Belief Behind Bars: Religious Freedom in Prison, RLUIPA, and the Establishment Clause, 31 New England Jour. on Criminal & Civil Confinement 297-330 (2005).
Kristen A. Carpenter, Considering Individual Religious Freedoms Under Tribal Constitutional Law, 14 Kansas Jour. of Law & Public Policy 561-606 (2005).
Angela Fernandez, Record-Keeping and Other Trouble Making: Thomas Lechford and Law Reform in Colonial Massachusetts, 23 Law & History Review 235-277 (2005).
__________
Roger Williams Law Review hosts a Symposium--Religious Liberty in America and Beyond: Celebrating the Legacy of Roger Williams on the 400th Anniversary of His Birth. Articles in it are:
Edward J. Eberle, Introduction, 10 Roger Wms. U. L. Rev. 279-287 (2005).
Edward J. Eberle, Roger Williams on Liberty of Conscience, 10 Roger Wms. U. L. Rev. 289-323 (2005).
Steven D. Smith, The Tenuous Case for Conscience, 10 Roger Wms. U. L. Rev. 325-358 (2005),
Kathleen A. Brady, Foundations for Freedom of Conscience: Stronger Than You Might Think, 10 Roger Wms. U. L. Rev. 359-384 (2005).
Michael J. Perry, A Right to Religious Freedom? The Universality of Human Rights, The Relativity of Culture, 10 Roger Wms. U. L. Rev. 385-425 (2005).
Richard S. Kay, Michael Perry's Right to Religious Freedom, 10 Roger Wms. U. L. Rev. 427-438 (2005).
Jonatas E.M.Machado, Freedom of Conscience and the Rights of Non-TOTFers, 10 Roger Wms. U. L. Rev. 439-449 (2005).
Jonatas E.M.Machado, Freedom of Religion: A View From Europe, 10 Roger Wms. U. L. Rev. 451-535 (2005).
Consent Decree In Another 10 Commandments Case
[CORRECTED] The Atlanta Journal Constitution reported yesterday on the consent decree (full text) issued by U.S. Georgia District Court Judge William C. O’Kelley ordering the removal of a poster-size depiction of the Ten commandments from the wall of the Barrow County, Georgia courthouse. The county is barred from posting similar displays on public property. However individual county employees are still permitted to display the 10 Commandments on their person or in their personal office. The suit had been filed by the ACLU of Georgia, which also recovered expenses and attorneys' fees of $150,000.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
"Tea Leaves" On Roberts On Church-State
Beliefnet tonight ran an article titled Clues on Roberts Church-State Views. The story quotes lengthy excerpts from two amicus briefs to the Supreme Court co-authored by US Supreme Court nominee Judge John G. Roberts while he was Deputy Solicitor General. One was in the high-school graduation prayer case of Lee v. Weisman. The other was in Westside Community Bd. of Educ. v. Mergens, the case raising the constitutionality of permitting religious groups to meet on school premises after school, as called for by the Equal Access Act.
It's Roberts for SCOTUS-- Here Is Link To Hearings on Him in 2003
By now, the news media have made clear that President Bush's nominee to the US Supreme Court will be DC Circuit Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. Here is a link to the April 30, 2003 Senate Judiciary Committee hearings when he was being considered for the Circuit Court.
Scopes Trial Photos Discovered
Sixty unpublished photos from the Scopes Monkey Trial 80 years ago, like this one of William Jennings Bryan being interrogated by Clarence Darrow, have been discovered in the archives of the Smithsonian Institution. They were taken by Watson Davis, managing editor of Science Service, who covered the trial, according to an AP report carried in today's Washington Post. The Smithsonian has placed a dozen of the photos on its website.
Developments In New Challenge to "Under God" In Pledge
After Michael Newdow lost his U.S. Supreme Court challenge last year to the inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, he filed another suit that avoided the standing problem that led to the demise of his first attempt. The new suit is brought on behalf of eight plaintiffs who are either children or custodial parents. Yesterday, there were two developments in the new case in federal district court in Sacramento, California.
First, the San Diego Union Tribune reported that Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that plaintiffs could not challenge the Pledge itself, and could move forward only to challenge the recitation of the Pledge in public schools. Second, Judge Karlton permitted the Knights of Columbus and seven families who are KofC members to intervene in the case. The Knights of Columbus' Press Release said that they "had a central role in adding 'under God' to the Pledge 51 years ago, and are determined to do everything possible to defend it in this court challenge."
First, the San Diego Union Tribune reported that Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that plaintiffs could not challenge the Pledge itself, and could move forward only to challenge the recitation of the Pledge in public schools. Second, Judge Karlton permitted the Knights of Columbus and seven families who are KofC members to intervene in the case. The Knights of Columbus' Press Release said that they "had a central role in adding 'under God' to the Pledge 51 years ago, and are determined to do everything possible to defend it in this court challenge."
German Official Suggests Keeping Mosques Under Electronic Surveillance
According to Islam Online yesterday, German Interior Minister Otto Schily has said that the German government is considering placing all mosques under observation through installing closed-circuit television cameras. Condemning "hate-inciting imams", Schily followed the lead of Bavarian Interior Minister Guenther Beckstein who earlier has suggested planting spies and cameras inside mosques and censoring sermons. However many other officials condemned the idea of monitoring places of worship. There are approximately 3.4 million Muslims in Germany.
Florida's Former Secy. State Urged Kabbalah Water For State Ag. Dept.
The Forward last Friday called attention to a report published earlier this month in the Orlando Sentinel regarding former Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris. Harris, who gained notoriety during the 2000 Presidential election, is now a member of the US House of Representatives from the 13th District of Florida. In 2001, while Harris was still Florida's Secretary of State, apparently she attempted to get Florida's Department of Agriculture to test Kabbalah Water as a potential treatment for Citrus Canker then spreading through Florida orange groves. The Orlando Sentinel found that at Harris' urging, state researchers worked with a rabbi and a cardiologist to test "Celestial Drops". Harris learned about the water from Rabbi Abe Hardoon, who now heads the West Boca Kabbalah Learning Center. Harris denied knowing that Celestial Drops was connected with the Kabbalah Center. She said she recommended it after learning that it had been developed by "Israeli scientists".
Line Drawing In New 10 Commandments Displays
The confusion created by Supreme Court's line drawing in its recent Ten Commandments decisions is indicated by a report in this morning's Casper, Wyoming Star-Tribune. Casper had one of the Fraternal Order of Eagles monuments in its City Park. In 2003, it removed the monument under threat of a lawsuit. Now the city is building a new downtown plaza. It plans to take the Ten Commandments monument out of storage and place it there, along with monuments to other documents that played an important part in the development of American law. Casper's city attorney, Bill Luben, has ruled that this is permissible under Van Orden v. Perry because the display will emphasize the Ten Commandments' historic value, not their religious value.
Monday, July 18, 2005
MA Referendum Challenging Stem Cell Research Stymied Because of CO Provision In Law
In a ruling filled with some irony, Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly has rejected a referendum petition that sought to get voters to overturn Massachusetts' new law that encourages stem cell research (MGL Chap. 111L- full text.). The ruling is reported in a story by the Associated Press and carried by Dateline Alabama. The Massachusetts Constitution provides: "no law that relates to religion, religious practices or religious institutions ... shall be the subject of a referendum petition." The AG ruled that the stem cell law is not subject to referendum because the law (Secs. 5(e) and 7(a)) contains conscientious objection provisions, protecting doctors, nurses and other medical employees from being required to do stem cell research that conflicts with their "sincerely held religious practices or beliefs". Larry Cirignano, the Catholic activist who began the referendum drive (see June 16 Boston Globe), plans to appeal the attorney general's ruling.
Bald Eagle Protections Challenged By Non-Indian Religious Adherents
The Federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act prohibits even the possession of Eagle feathers or parts. However, there is an exception for Native Americans who use eagle feathers, heads and talons in religious ceremonies. The National Eagle Repository, a federal agency, collects dead eagles from zoos, game wardens and highway departments, and, under a permit system (50 CFR 22.22), distributes them to those holding a Certificate of Indian Birth for religious uses.
The Los Angeles Times today reports that this carefully constructed system is breaking down. Thousands of non-Indians have embraced Native American beliefs and ceremonies. Four of them are suing in federal court in Utah claiming that the permit system that excludes them violates their constitutional right to free exercise of religion. Also demand among Native Americans is increasing as tribes attempt to revive traditional practices. Finally private collectors, particularly in Europe, are willing to pay large sums for regalia with eagle feathers. All this means that black-market prices for eagle feathers are soaring, and the government fears an increased illegal killing of eagles will occur.
The Los Angeles Times today reports that this carefully constructed system is breaking down. Thousands of non-Indians have embraced Native American beliefs and ceremonies. Four of them are suing in federal court in Utah claiming that the permit system that excludes them violates their constitutional right to free exercise of religion. Also demand among Native Americans is increasing as tribes attempt to revive traditional practices. Finally private collectors, particularly in Europe, are willing to pay large sums for regalia with eagle feathers. All this means that black-market prices for eagle feathers are soaring, and the government fears an increased illegal killing of eagles will occur.
Pakistan Province Passes Law Creating Office to Enforce Islamic Observance
In Pakistan, the Provincial Assembly of the North West Frontier Province, a province on the Afghan border, has enacted a controversial new law known as the Hasba Act. Italy's Asia News reported last week that the act creates the office of the muhtasib, a religious ombudsman whose function is to assure that people strictly follow Islamic rules, such as Friday prayers, separation of single men and women, and limitations on singing and dancing. The bill now goes to the governor of the Province for his signature. The Times of India quotes the governor, Khalilur Rehman, as saying that he will take every constitutional step to prevent "Talibanization" of the region.
Last Friday, Pakistan's attorney general, on behalf of the president, referred the provincial bill to Pakistan's Supreme Court for an advisory opinion on whether the bill violates Pakistan's constitution. According to a report on this by Dawn, a 5-member Supreme Court panel will hold a hearing on the bill on July 25.
Meanwhile, the Pakistan Daily Times today reports that Akram Khan Durrani, Chief Minister of the Northwest Frontier Province, has been in the United States attempting to explain the human rights aspects of the Hasba Act to US officials and to a "think tank". Durrani said, "I hope the US government will not oppose the Hasba Bill". He added that his meeting with the US think-tank had been successful.
Last Friday, Pakistan's attorney general, on behalf of the president, referred the provincial bill to Pakistan's Supreme Court for an advisory opinion on whether the bill violates Pakistan's constitution. According to a report on this by Dawn, a 5-member Supreme Court panel will hold a hearing on the bill on July 25.
Meanwhile, the Pakistan Daily Times today reports that Akram Khan Durrani, Chief Minister of the Northwest Frontier Province, has been in the United States attempting to explain the human rights aspects of the Hasba Act to US officials and to a "think tank". Durrani said, "I hope the US government will not oppose the Hasba Bill". He added that his meeting with the US think-tank had been successful.
Reporters' Testimony Sought In Intelligent Design Challenge
In Pennsylvania, a federal lawsuit brought on behalf of 8 families by the ACLU is pending challenging the policy of the Dover Area School District that requires reading ninth-graders a statement about intelligent design before teaching about evolution. (See prior postings 1 and 2) The Christian Post reports today on last Thursday's pre-trial hearing. At issue in the case is whether the school's district's policy was motivated by religion, or was purely educational. Attorneys for the school district, the Thomas More Law Center, have asked the judge to permit them to call as witnesses two reporters whose stories quoted school board members as making religious statements. They claim that reporters reporters, Heidi Bernhard-Bubb and Joe Maldonado, misrepresented what the board members said. U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III will review the reporters' notes to decide whether they should testify.
MS Adoption Agency Takes State Funds, Turns Away Catholics
A Christian adoption agency in Jackson, Mississippi, that receives funds from the state's Choose Life license plate sales refuses to place children with Roman Catholic families. An AP story reported by the South Florida Sun-Sentinel on Friday quotes Bethany Christian Services as saying that Catholicism does not agree with Bethany's Statement of Faith. 24 adoption and pregnancy counseling centers in Mississippi receive funds from the extra fee charged when the state sells Choose Life plates. The state raised $244,000 from the sales in 2004. Bethany received $7053 of that.
Sunday, July 17, 2005
California Missions In Financial Trouble
Today's Monterey Herald reports that with a lawsuit pending (see prior posting) challenging federal aid for renovating California's 21 historic missions, the California Missions Foundation is in deep financial trouble. It appears that Congress will not appropriate any funds for them in this year's budget, despite its previous enactment of the California Missions Act. State funding has also dried up after the California Cultural and Historic Endowment Board ruled that the prohibition on using state funds for religious purposes precludes them from funding the missions. 19 of the missions are owned by the Catholic Church and still used for religious services. Even if the California Missions Act is upheld, it calls for the missions to raise matching funds, and they have had difficulty doing this. Mission San Miguel near San Luis Obispo has been completely closed because of earthquake damage since December 2003.
No Enforcement Planned Against Groups For Polygamy In Utah
With the highly publicized crackdown in recent months on the FLDS (see latest prior posting), the Salt Lake Tribune reports today that other religious groups in Utah that practice polygamy are wary. But apparently the Utah attorney general's office has assured groups that do not practice underage marriage that they will not be prosecuted. The Apostolic United Brethren, based in Salt Lake City, and Arizona's Centennial Park group recommend to their followers that girls be at least 18 before they marry. More problematic is the Kingston group which accepts relationships between half-siblings and first cousins.
Commentary: The First Amendment and Changing Views of Islam After London
Ever since 9-11 there has been a nagging question which both pundits and politicians have largely avoided: will the invocation of Islam as justification by terrorists cause Americans in opposing terror to change the normative Free Exercise doctrines deeply embedded in US constitutional jurisprudence? It is sensitive topic even to raise.
Immediately after 9-11, the White House gave a clear endorsement to traditional First Amendment values. It characterized the 9-11 terrorists as individuals who do not represent Islam; the terrorists have misinterpreted the religion's true teachings. So the First Amendment issues could, for the most part, be avoided. In his speech to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 20, 2001, President Bush set the tone: “The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics -- a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam.” This has remained the dominant U.S. government approach. As recently as last week, a State Department official addressing a conference on Human Rights and the Fight Against Terrorism said that “many terrorists have chosen to hide behind a distorted version of their faiths”.
However with the July 7 bombings in London, I detect a change in unofficial attitudes—a suggestion that terrorism may be more normative in parts of Islam than we have been willing to admit. Thomas Friedman’s July 15 New York Times column hinted at this: “Of course, not all Muslims are suicide bombers; it would be ludicrous to suggest that. But virtually all suicide bombers, of late, have been Sunni Muslims. There are a lot of angry people in the world…. But the only ones who seem to feel entitled and motivated to kill themselves and totally innocent people, including other Muslims, over their anger are young Sunni radicals. What is going on? Neither we nor the Muslim world can run away from this question any longer.”
On Saturday, the conservative columnist Robert Klein Engler left no doubt about his attitude. In an American Daily column titled Political Factions and a Modest Proposal for Dealing With Islam, he wrote: “The average American knows the so-called war on terror is not really a war on terror. He knows in his gut that what's happening is that we are fighting another war with Islam. That's what it is, no matter what the politicians say. This war against Islam is the flaring up again of a conflict that has been going on for 1,500 years…. "
Engler continued: "It is a fault of liberalism that it sees Islam as just one faction among many in Western societies…. It is the theological ideas inherent in Islamic law that make Islam the greatest challenge that constitutional democracies face. As soon as these democracies grant Islam the status of a faction, Muslims begins to campaign for the overthrow of the very constitutional structures that make them a viable faction…. The conclusion to draw from this is that either Islam stops being Islam, or it be excluded as a faction from democratic republics….”
Then came Engler's radical proposal. He wrote: “[L]et me make a modest proposal: instead of tolerating Islam, we should build a fence around it. This fence makes no judgment about the religion of Islam. Instead, it respects the uniqueness of Islam. A fence simply recognizes that two world views are incompatible…. A fence around Islam may include the removal of Muslims from Western societies, the outlawing of Islamic practices, cultural parity with Muslim states, new sources of oil and the postponement of economic and technical development in the Muslim world until the military and cultural threat of Islam is diminished.”
That's Engler's view. The difficult question is whether a view like that is also beginning to resonate with the political mainstream in America? Probably, "not yet". But when British Muslim leaders and scholars condemn the bombings in London, but at the same time go out of their way to justify terrorist bombings in Iraq and Israel, they do not help their case. If the mainstream view in the U.S. of normative Salafi Islam does begin to change, the attitudinal shift will have profound moral, political and legal implications for all Muslims and all Americans.
Immediately after 9-11, the White House gave a clear endorsement to traditional First Amendment values. It characterized the 9-11 terrorists as individuals who do not represent Islam; the terrorists have misinterpreted the religion's true teachings. So the First Amendment issues could, for the most part, be avoided. In his speech to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 20, 2001, President Bush set the tone: “The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics -- a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam.” This has remained the dominant U.S. government approach. As recently as last week, a State Department official addressing a conference on Human Rights and the Fight Against Terrorism said that “many terrorists have chosen to hide behind a distorted version of their faiths”.
However with the July 7 bombings in London, I detect a change in unofficial attitudes—a suggestion that terrorism may be more normative in parts of Islam than we have been willing to admit. Thomas Friedman’s July 15 New York Times column hinted at this: “Of course, not all Muslims are suicide bombers; it would be ludicrous to suggest that. But virtually all suicide bombers, of late, have been Sunni Muslims. There are a lot of angry people in the world…. But the only ones who seem to feel entitled and motivated to kill themselves and totally innocent people, including other Muslims, over their anger are young Sunni radicals. What is going on? Neither we nor the Muslim world can run away from this question any longer.”
On Saturday, the conservative columnist Robert Klein Engler left no doubt about his attitude. In an American Daily column titled Political Factions and a Modest Proposal for Dealing With Islam, he wrote: “The average American knows the so-called war on terror is not really a war on terror. He knows in his gut that what's happening is that we are fighting another war with Islam. That's what it is, no matter what the politicians say. This war against Islam is the flaring up again of a conflict that has been going on for 1,500 years…. "
Engler continued: "It is a fault of liberalism that it sees Islam as just one faction among many in Western societies…. It is the theological ideas inherent in Islamic law that make Islam the greatest challenge that constitutional democracies face. As soon as these democracies grant Islam the status of a faction, Muslims begins to campaign for the overthrow of the very constitutional structures that make them a viable faction…. The conclusion to draw from this is that either Islam stops being Islam, or it be excluded as a faction from democratic republics….”
Then came Engler's radical proposal. He wrote: “[L]et me make a modest proposal: instead of tolerating Islam, we should build a fence around it. This fence makes no judgment about the religion of Islam. Instead, it respects the uniqueness of Islam. A fence simply recognizes that two world views are incompatible…. A fence around Islam may include the removal of Muslims from Western societies, the outlawing of Islamic practices, cultural parity with Muslim states, new sources of oil and the postponement of economic and technical development in the Muslim world until the military and cultural threat of Islam is diminished.”
That's Engler's view. The difficult question is whether a view like that is also beginning to resonate with the political mainstream in America? Probably, "not yet". But when British Muslim leaders and scholars condemn the bombings in London, but at the same time go out of their way to justify terrorist bombings in Iraq and Israel, they do not help their case. If the mainstream view in the U.S. of normative Salafi Islam does begin to change, the attitudinal shift will have profound moral, political and legal implications for all Muslims and all Americans.
Saturday, July 16, 2005
Abuse and Church Liability--In 2 Cases, Different Facts, But Neither Succeeds
Within the past few days, two state Supreme Courts have ruled in cases claiming church liability growing out of sexual abuse. In both, the church prevailed. But the two cases were factually rather different from each other.
Holly Berry v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, decided by the New Hampshire Supreme Court on July 15, involved a claim by two girls against church officials who failed to report to authorities that their father was sexually and physically abusing them after the girls' mother reported the abuse to church elders. The court held that the state’s child abuse reporting statute does not give rise to a private right of action. Plaintiffs also claimed that the congregation had a common law duty to protect them because of a fiduciary or special relationship, since Jehovahs Witnesses are taught not to report problems to secular authorities. But the majority found no facts present to establish a special relationship here. Nor were there special circumstances created by the elders that enhanced the risk of abuse.
A dissent argued that a duty was created based on special circumstances. It also rejected the claim that investigation into claims of negligent counseling would violate the Free Exercise or Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The case was discussed in today's Concord Monitor.
John Doe 67C v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, decided July 13 by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, involved claims of negligence, fiduciary fraud and breach of fiduciary duty growing out of sexual abuse of plaintiff by a priest when he was a child. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the claim because there had been no allegations that the Archdiocese knew or should have known that the priest was a child abuser during the relevant years.
A concurring opinion rejects Establishment Clause “excessive entanglement” objections to plaintiff’s claims, and finds that the “discovery rule” prevents the claims from being barred by the statute of limitations.
Holly Berry v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, decided by the New Hampshire Supreme Court on July 15, involved a claim by two girls against church officials who failed to report to authorities that their father was sexually and physically abusing them after the girls' mother reported the abuse to church elders. The court held that the state’s child abuse reporting statute does not give rise to a private right of action. Plaintiffs also claimed that the congregation had a common law duty to protect them because of a fiduciary or special relationship, since Jehovahs Witnesses are taught not to report problems to secular authorities. But the majority found no facts present to establish a special relationship here. Nor were there special circumstances created by the elders that enhanced the risk of abuse.
A dissent argued that a duty was created based on special circumstances. It also rejected the claim that investigation into claims of negligent counseling would violate the Free Exercise or Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The case was discussed in today's Concord Monitor.
John Doe 67C v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, decided July 13 by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, involved claims of negligence, fiduciary fraud and breach of fiduciary duty growing out of sexual abuse of plaintiff by a priest when he was a child. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the claim because there had been no allegations that the Archdiocese knew or should have known that the priest was a child abuser during the relevant years.
A concurring opinion rejects Establishment Clause “excessive entanglement” objections to plaintiff’s claims, and finds that the “discovery rule” prevents the claims from being barred by the statute of limitations.
Friday, July 15, 2005
Sikhs Sue NY MTA Over Required Logo On Turbans
Five Sikhs employed by the New York Metropolitan Transit Authority filed a religious discrimination suit in US District Court in Brooklyn today, according to a report by Newsday. The five claim that they were ordered to wear MTA logos on their turbans, even though employees who wear other religious or secular headgear are not required to do so. Amardeep Singh, a lawyer for the men, said "It smacks of discrimination to create special rules for Sikhs and Muslims that don't apply to anyone else."
DC Cardinal Supports Catholic Belief In Theory of Evolution
Last week, Cardinal Christoph Schonborn created quite a stir by claiming that the Catholic Church supports Intelligent Design. (See prior posting.) Now it appears that Washington, DC Cardinal Theodore McCarrick disagrees. KATC News in Acadiana, Lousiana reported yesterday on a press conference held by Cardinal McCarrick at the National Press Club in Washington. McCarrick said that instead of "the beautiful story of Genesis," Catholics can believe in evolution -- as long as they understand evolution to have been guided by God rather than chance. He said: "as long as in every understanding of evolution, the hand of God is recognized as being present, we can accept that."
Cardinal McCarrick was quickly criticized by Ken Ham of Answers In Genesis, a group that supports a literal reading of the Creation Story. Agape Press yesterday quotes Ham as saying: "If you're going to believe in evolution, and say that God took an ape man and made a soul to make Adam, and God took an ape woman and made a soul to make Eve, then the woman came from an ape woman. She didn't come from Adam. And if the woman didn't come from Adam's side, then you've got a major problem." He continued: "The issue about believing in millions of years and evolution undermines biblical authority.... And that's the problem with much of the Church, and the problem you find in the Catholic Church, where the Bible is really not the ultimate authority. It's really the Church [that is considered] the ultimate authority."
Cardinal McCarrick was quickly criticized by Ken Ham of Answers In Genesis, a group that supports a literal reading of the Creation Story. Agape Press yesterday quotes Ham as saying: "If you're going to believe in evolution, and say that God took an ape man and made a soul to make Adam, and God took an ape woman and made a soul to make Eve, then the woman came from an ape woman. She didn't come from Adam. And if the woman didn't come from Adam's side, then you've got a major problem." He continued: "The issue about believing in millions of years and evolution undermines biblical authority.... And that's the problem with much of the Church, and the problem you find in the Catholic Church, where the Bible is really not the ultimate authority. It's really the Church [that is considered] the ultimate authority."
Conservative Caucus Backs Roy Moore For SCOTUS
The Conservative Caucus, led by its chairman Howard Phillips, this week called for President Bush to nominate former Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore to the United States Supreme Court. The Washington Post yesterday reports on the news conference held by the group which is suggesting a Draft Roy Moore movement. Joined by former Republican Presidential and Senatorial hopeful Alan Keyes, Phillips described Moore as: "The great patriot, that exemplary jurist, God's man for these times."
New Website on Clergy Sexual Abuse Legal Developments
Tidings News reports that the Los Angeles law firm of Hennigan, Bennett and Dorman LLP has created a web site to provide comprehensive information and legal analysis on the clergy sexual abuse cases involving the Los Angeles diocese. The web site, at www.la-clergycases.com , contains news, background and updates on the pending cases, information on policy developments, and a library of legal and other documents.
Kazakhstan Law Restricting Religious Groups Takes Effect
Forum 18 reports today that in Kazakhstan, the President on July 8 signed a new law affecting the freedom of religious groups to operate in the country. (See prior related posting.) The new measures came into force upon the publication on July 13 and 14. The new law bans unregistered religious organizations and requires all missionaries to register annually with local authorities. Those taking part in public meetings of unregistered religious organizations, or those who finance them, are subject to fines. All literature and videos a missionary intends to use must be approved by officials. The head of the Association of Religious Organizations in Kazakhstan pointed out limited successes from lobbying while the laws were under consideration. The definition of who is a missionary was narrowed as was language prohibiting religious education injurious to children.
ACLU Has New Director For Its Religious Freedom Program
The American Civil Liberties Union announced yesterday that Dr. Jeremy Gunn has joined its national staff as Director of its new Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. For the past five years, Dr. Gunn was at Emory Law School as a Senior Fellow for Religion and Human Rights.
Thursday, July 14, 2005
EEOC District Offices Restructured
SHRM Online today reports: "After a long and often tense meeting, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) voted 3-1 July 8 to approve controversial changes to the civil rights enforcement agency’s field structure that will cut the number of operations led by district directors and regional attorneys from 23 to 15 but will not involve closing offices or laying off employees." Eight of the current district offices will now become field offices. The Society for Human Resource Management praised the changes, saying they will reduce bureaucratic supervisory layers. The union representing EEOC employees, however, claims the changes will compromise civil rights enforcement. The EEOC enforces federal discrimination in employment laws, including those prohibiting discrimination on the basis of religion.
Israel's Knesset Discusses Changing National Anthem
The Constitution, Law and Justice Committee of Israel's Knesset is discussing the possibility of changing the lyrics to Israel's national anthem, Hatikvah, so that it will be meaningful to non-Jewish citizens of Israel as well, particularly Israeli Arabs. The current anthem speaks of the historical yearning of Jews to be a free nation in the land of Zion.
In a July 7 article, Haaretz reports: "The debates were held within the framework of meetings on formulating a 'widely approved constitution'. The main proposal debated was to change the lyric 'the soul of a Jew yearns' to 'the soul of an Israeli yearns'."
A July 10 Haaretz article remarks: "The real surprise is that the person who led the discussion on the subject of changing the anthem is the chair of the committee, Michael Eitan, one of the hard-core members of the nationalist camp in the Likud. Although Eitan emphasized that he is not proposing practical solutions, afterwards he couldn't restrain himself. He said, for example that 'if we add another line, so that even an Arab citizen will be able to say 'the Jewish soul', but will feel that his own soul is also included in the enterprise that belongs to all of us, we have to be proud of that if we succeed'.... Eitan pointed out that the public debate 'will be about the identity of the State of Israel and not about the difficulty of getting used to a new version...' "
Although adopted by the 18th Zionist Congress in 1933 as the national anthem of the Jewish people, Hatikvah was not formally made the national anthem of the state of Israel until November 2004 when the Knesset amended the Flag and Emblem Law of 1949. A July 12 Haaretz article traces much of this background.
In a July 7 article, Haaretz reports: "The debates were held within the framework of meetings on formulating a 'widely approved constitution'. The main proposal debated was to change the lyric 'the soul of a Jew yearns' to 'the soul of an Israeli yearns'."
A July 10 Haaretz article remarks: "The real surprise is that the person who led the discussion on the subject of changing the anthem is the chair of the committee, Michael Eitan, one of the hard-core members of the nationalist camp in the Likud. Although Eitan emphasized that he is not proposing practical solutions, afterwards he couldn't restrain himself. He said, for example that 'if we add another line, so that even an Arab citizen will be able to say 'the Jewish soul', but will feel that his own soul is also included in the enterprise that belongs to all of us, we have to be proud of that if we succeed'.... Eitan pointed out that the public debate 'will be about the identity of the State of Israel and not about the difficulty of getting used to a new version...' "
Although adopted by the 18th Zionist Congress in 1933 as the national anthem of the Jewish people, Hatikvah was not formally made the national anthem of the state of Israel until November 2004 when the Knesset amended the Flag and Emblem Law of 1949. A July 12 Haaretz article traces much of this background.
Will Iraq's New Constitution Protect Minority Religions?
The Washington Times reports on yesterday's news conference at the National Press Club by representatives of minority religious groups in Iraq-- Chaldo/Assyrian Catholics, Iraqi Turkmen Muslims, and Mandaeans. They fear that the new Iraqi Constitution being drafted will not have meaningful protections for religious freedom. They are concerned that the Constitution will provide that Sharia will be the main source of Iraqi civil law, and that it will prohibit enactment of laws that are repugnant to Islam.
Also at the news conference was Nina Shea, a member of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). She indicated that a draft of the Constitution's religious freedom provisions may be available this week. In March, USCIRF published a report (press release) analyzing the constitutions of 44 predominantly Muslim countries. It examines their provisions on the role of Islam, freedom of religion, and equality for women. The full text of the report is available online in both English and Arabic.
Also at the news conference was Nina Shea, a member of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). She indicated that a draft of the Constitution's religious freedom provisions may be available this week. In March, USCIRF published a report (press release) analyzing the constitutions of 44 predominantly Muslim countries. It examines their provisions on the role of Islam, freedom of religion, and equality for women. The full text of the report is available online in both English and Arabic.
Report on Increased Transparency for Non-Profits Given to Senate
Yesterday, the Acton Institute reported on the recommendations from the Panel on the Non-Profit Sector, an advisory group to the U.S. Senate. The Panel's report contains 120 suggestions for increased transparency and accountability in the non-profit sector. The recommendations would likely affect faith-based organizations. However many of its recommendations would not apply to religious congregations that are not required to file IRS Form 990. The report focuses on issues like compensation to directors and executives, benefits to related parties, non-cash donations, audit committees, board composition, disclosure of performance data, and conflicts of interest. The full text Panel's 112-page Report titled Strengthening Transparency, Governance, Accountability of Charitable Organizations was transmitted to the Senate Finance Committee on June 22.
British Muslims To Issue Fatwa Condemning London Bombers
Today's Scotland Daily Record reports that top Islamic scholars in Britain plan to issue a Fatwa condemning the four suicide bombers who carried out the attacks in London last week. The ruling will attack the religious basis of the terrorists' justifications for their action. According to the paper, "The religious ruling will outlaw the bombers among Muslims for breaking the basic rules of the religion."
UPDATE: On Friday, July 15, Muslim scholars in London condemned the July 7 bombings, saying they violated the Quran by killing innocent civilians. According to CNN, they said the bombers should not be considered martyrs. However, they refused to condemn all suicide bombings, saying that in countries like Israel and Iraq they are sometimes justified as a defense against occupiers. The statement also condemned racism, unemployment and economic deprivation that Muslim young people suffer in poor sections of London.
UPDATE: On Friday, July 15, Muslim scholars in London condemned the July 7 bombings, saying they violated the Quran by killing innocent civilians. According to CNN, they said the bombers should not be considered martyrs. However, they refused to condemn all suicide bombings, saying that in countries like Israel and Iraq they are sometimes justified as a defense against occupiers. The statement also condemned racism, unemployment and economic deprivation that Muslim young people suffer in poor sections of London.
Tulsa Zoo Changes Its Mind On Creationism Display
The board of the Tulsa zoo has reversed itself and decided against installing an exhibit displaying the Biblical account of creation next to its display on evolution. (See prior posting). The Dallas Morning News reported last week that the Tulsa Park and Recreation Board has had second thoughts after a public outcry against the exhibit.
The paper reports: "Tulsa architect Dan Hicks, who proposed the creationism display, decried the zoo oversight board's reversal, saying it "stepped on the constitutional liberties of Tulsa taxpayers." He argued it is only fair to include Christian beliefs on origins, since the zoo already displays other religious symbols, including an elephant-like, Hindu statue. But board member Dale McNamara said she believes the statue fits the zoo's "living museum" mission of developing displays that explain the cultural significance of animals."
The paper reports: "Tulsa architect Dan Hicks, who proposed the creationism display, decried the zoo oversight board's reversal, saying it "stepped on the constitutional liberties of Tulsa taxpayers." He argued it is only fair to include Christian beliefs on origins, since the zoo already displays other religious symbols, including an elephant-like, Hindu statue. But board member Dale McNamara said she believes the statue fits the zoo's "living museum" mission of developing displays that explain the cultural significance of animals."
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
PA Courtroom 10 Commandments OK'd
The Harrisburg Pennsylvania Express-Times reports today that the nine county court judges in the Northampton County Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas have ruled that Ten Commandments hanging above the witness stand in Courtroom One can stay. In an opinion by Presiding Judge Robert A. Freedberg, the court said that there is no evidence that the plaque was intended to convey a religious message, and there is no other evidence of the county attempting to promote religion. The plaque was presented to the court in 1954 by a Jewish community group to commemorate the 300th anniversary of the first Jewish settlement in America. The opinion quotes US Supreme Court Justice Steven Breyer's concurring opinion in the recent case of Van Orden v. Perry, that "passage of significant time without a challenge to the plaque's placement demonstrates that it has not been perceived as an establishment of religion."
Blair Seeks Dialogue With British Muslims
In a speech today before the House of Commons, British Prime Minister Tony Blair pledged to open a dialogue with the country's Muslims after last Thursday's terrorist bombings in London. The Los Angeles Times reports on today's reactions by Blair and others. In his address, Blair said of the bombings:
"This is not an isolated criminal act we are dealing with. It is an extreme and evil ideology whose roots lie in a perverted and poisonous misinterpretation of the religion of Islam. ... We will seek to debate the right way forward in combating this evil within the Muslim community with Muslim leaders and it is our intention to begin this process immediately. In the end this can only be taken on and defeated by the community itself, but we all can help and facilitate."
"This is not an isolated criminal act we are dealing with. It is an extreme and evil ideology whose roots lie in a perverted and poisonous misinterpretation of the religion of Islam. ... We will seek to debate the right way forward in combating this evil within the Muslim community with Muslim leaders and it is our intention to begin this process immediately. In the end this can only be taken on and defeated by the community itself, but we all can help and facilitate."
And More New Scholarship....
This week's SmartCILP turns up yet more great articles on church-state and free exercise issues:
Monica K. Miller & Brian H. Bornstein. Religious Appeals In Closing Arguments: Impermissible Input or Benign Banter?, 29 Law & Psychol. Rev. 29-61 (2005).
Andrew C Nichols, Exemptions for "Religious Corporations" From Employment Discrimination Statutes: Should Non-Profit Status Be Required?, 3 Georgetown Jour. L. & Pub. Pol'y 133-149 (2005).
Steven K. Green, Federalism and the Establishment Clause: A Reassessment, 38 Creighton L. Rev. 761-797 (2005).
Steven D. Smith, The Iceberg of Religious Freedom: Sub-Surface Levels of Nonestablishment Discourse, 38 Creighton L. Rev. 799-814 (2005)
Richard Collin Mangrum, Shall We Sing? Shall We Sing Religious Music in Public Schools?, 38 Creighton L. Rev. 815-870 (2005 )
Monica K. Miller & Brian H. Bornstein. Religious Appeals In Closing Arguments: Impermissible Input or Benign Banter?, 29 Law & Psychol. Rev. 29-61 (2005).
Andrew C Nichols, Exemptions for "Religious Corporations" From Employment Discrimination Statutes: Should Non-Profit Status Be Required?, 3 Georgetown Jour. L. & Pub. Pol'y 133-149 (2005).
_______________
Creighton Law Review has published a Centennial Symposium on Reconciling the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses. It includes the following articles:
Steven K. Green, Federalism and the Establishment Clause: A Reassessment, 38 Creighton L. Rev. 761-797 (2005).
Steven D. Smith, The Iceberg of Religious Freedom: Sub-Surface Levels of Nonestablishment Discourse, 38 Creighton L. Rev. 799-814 (2005)
Richard Collin Mangrum, Shall We Sing? Shall We Sing Religious Music in Public Schools?, 38 Creighton L. Rev. 815-870 (2005 )
________________
Oxford University Press has published Edwin S. Gaustad's biography of Roger Williams. It is part of Oxford's "Lives and Legacies" series.
Canada Signs Cybercrime Protocol On Racist Acts
Canada last week became the first country outside of Europe to sign the Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime Concerning the Criminalisation of Acts of a Racist and Xenophobic Nature Committed Through Computer Systems (full text). According to a report yesterday from OUT-LAW News, the Cybercrime Convention itself entered into force in July 2004. The Additional Protocol has not yet entered into force. While 28 countries in addition to Canada have signed the Protocol, it has been formally ratified so far only by four. It takes five ratifications for it to enter into effect.
The Additional Protocol does not cover all religious incitement online. Its definition of "racist and xenophopic material" is "any written material, any image or any other representation of ideas or theories, which advocates, promotes or incites hatred, discrimination or violence, against any individual or group of individuals, based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, as well as religion if used as a pretext for any of these factors."
The Protocol requires signatories to outlaw public dissemination of this type of material through computer systems, such as through a website. The Protocol also covers racist and xenophopic motivated threats, even if sent to an individual by e-mail and not disseminated publicly.
The Additional Protocol does not cover all religious incitement online. Its definition of "racist and xenophopic material" is "any written material, any image or any other representation of ideas or theories, which advocates, promotes or incites hatred, discrimination or violence, against any individual or group of individuals, based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, as well as religion if used as a pretext for any of these factors."
The Protocol requires signatories to outlaw public dissemination of this type of material through computer systems, such as through a website. The Protocol also covers racist and xenophopic motivated threats, even if sent to an individual by e-mail and not disseminated publicly.
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
More New Articles of Interest
Two recent articles of interest are discussed in postings at Mirror of Justice Blog:
Emory Law School Prof. John Witte, Jr. , One Public Religion, Many Private Religions: John Adams and the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution, which appears in THE FOUNDERS ON GOD AND GOVERNMENT, Daniel L. Dreisbach, Mark D. Hall, and Jeffry R. Morrison, eds., pp. 23-52, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004. [Mirror of Justice post]
Regent University Law School Prof. Michael V. Hernandez, A Flawed Foundation: Christianity's Loss of Preeminent Influence on American Law [LEXIS link], 56 Rutgers Law Review 625 (2004). [Mirror of Justice post]
Emory Law School Prof. John Witte, Jr. , One Public Religion, Many Private Religions: John Adams and the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution, which appears in THE FOUNDERS ON GOD AND GOVERNMENT, Daniel L. Dreisbach, Mark D. Hall, and Jeffry R. Morrison, eds., pp. 23-52, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004. [Mirror of Justice post]
Regent University Law School Prof. Michael V. Hernandez, A Flawed Foundation: Christianity's Loss of Preeminent Influence on American Law [LEXIS link], 56 Rutgers Law Review 625 (2004). [Mirror of Justice post]
Evangelicals Numbers Increasing In Military Chaplaincy
The New York Times this morning carries a very interesting front-page article on the growing number of evangelicals in the Chaplain Corps of the armed forces. Focusing particularly on the Air Force, it points out that this increase is accompanied by decreases in Catholic and mainline Protestant chaplains. The article explores at length the tension between evangelicals' obligation to share the Gospels, and military chaplains' duty to serve personnel of all faiths. The full article is worth a read.
Christian Theme Park Given Property Tax Exemption
A state circuit court in Orlando, Florida has decided that the Christian theme park, Holy Land Experience, is entitled to a property tax exemption as a nonprofit organization, according to a report in Monday's USA Today. The park is operated by Zion's Hope, an organization devoted to converting Jews to Christianity. Previously, the Orange County Property Appraiser's Office had exempted only the park's administrative building and educational facilities. But Judge Cynthia McKinnon, in a July 5 ruling, held that the entire park is tax exempt: "The undisputed evidence before the court is that (Zion's Hope) is using the property to spread what it considers to be God's word to many people at one time."
In a press release yesterday, Liberty Counsel which represented the theme park explained the decision, saying: "The government treads on thin ice when it bifurcates a ministry into what it considers secular and religious activities.... Every aspect of The Holy Land Experience is part and parcel of the religious ministry. The government may not make doctrinal decisions by determining some aspects are central to the religious ministry and some are not. The First Amendment prohibits governmental gerrymandering."
In a press release yesterday, Liberty Counsel which represented the theme park explained the decision, saying: "The government treads on thin ice when it bifurcates a ministry into what it considers secular and religious activities.... Every aspect of The Holy Land Experience is part and parcel of the religious ministry. The government may not make doctrinal decisions by determining some aspects are central to the religious ministry and some are not. The First Amendment prohibits governmental gerrymandering."
NC Quran In Court Dispute Being Referred To Legislature
In a posting last month, I focused on the dispute in North Carolina courts over whether witnesses may be sworn using a copy of the Quran instead of the Bible. Two judges in Guilford County had said "no". The issue was supposed to have been decided by a state Judicial Conference, or by the Administrative Office of the Courts. But now the Charlotte Observer reports that apparently the issue is being referred to the state legislature instead. Current state law calls for the oath to be taken on the "Holy Scriptures". The Guilford County judges say that this means the Christian Bible.
The language of the North Carolina General Statutes, Chap. 11, Art. 1 on the administration of oaths is interesting. Apparently the section at issue is Sec. 11-1, which reads: "Judges ... shall (except in the cases in this Chapter excepted) require the party to be sworn to lay his hand upon the Holy Scriptures, in token of his engagement to speak the truth and in further token that, if he should swerve from the truth, he may be justly deprived of all the blessings of that holy book and made liable to that vengeance which he has imprecated on his own head."
The language of the North Carolina General Statutes, Chap. 11, Art. 1 on the administration of oaths is interesting. Apparently the section at issue is Sec. 11-1, which reads: "Judges ... shall (except in the cases in this Chapter excepted) require the party to be sworn to lay his hand upon the Holy Scriptures, in token of his engagement to speak the truth and in further token that, if he should swerve from the truth, he may be justly deprived of all the blessings of that holy book and made liable to that vengeance which he has imprecated on his own head."
Prisoner's "Religious Name" Recognized Only Prospectively
In United States v. Baker, yesterday the 11 Circuit Court of Appeals held that a prisoner who has changed his name to adopt a "religious name" may have that name added, prospectively, to the name under which he was committed to prison. However, he has no Free Exercise right to have his commitment order, issued in 1993, changed to reflect his later legal name change.
UK Racial and Religious Hatred Bill Clears Commons
Yesterday, Great Britain's controversial Racial and Religious Hatred Bill moved one step closer to passage. (See prior postings 1, 2). BBC News reported that the House of Commons gave the proposal a vote of 301 to 229 on its third reading, but not before assuring that citizen's arrests for violation of the law would not be permitted. As the Telegraph reported today, many had feared that otherwise people taking offense at comments made at a public meeting could just arrest the speaker. Representatives of many churches, as well as both Conservative and Liberal Democratic politicians oppose the bill that prohibits incitement to religious hatred. They argue it will infringe free speech by prohibiting legitimate discussion of religious beliefs. They also argue that by not defining religion, the law could be used to protect Satanists and other marginal groups. The bill will now move to the House of Lords where its prospects for passage are far more doubtful.
Monday, July 11, 2005
Christian Group Call For Anti-ACLU Court Appointee
Despite President Bush's request that conservative groups moderate their rhetoric on Supreme Court nominees, it is clear that some religious groups are not heeding his plea. Today a press release was issued by Christians Reviving America's Values calling on the President to appoint a conservative Justice "to counter Bill Clinton's appointment of former ACLU General Counsel Ruth Bader Ginsburg." It also called for Congressional hearings "to expose the ACLU's use of taxpayer money to fund its extremist agenda, and pass legislation to stop this practice," pointing to awards of attorney fees to the ACLU in suits in which it prevailed against city or state governments. The release also said: "President Bush has been elected twice -- with the deciding votes by all accounts being cast by conservative Christians. It is imperative that he appoint a counterbalance to the pro-ACLU Ruth Bader Ginsburg."
Israel’s High Court Holds Another Hearing on IDF Exemptions for Yeshiva Students
Both the Jerusalem Post and the Haaretz yesterday reported on proceedings before Israel's High Court of Justice in the ongoing suit challenging Israel's 3-year old Tal Law. The Law (background article) provides for postponement of military service for ultra-Orthodox yeshiva students. Its enactment was impelled by a 1998 High Court decision that struck down a long-standing arrangement exempting yeshiva students from the draft.
The Tal Law was supposed to encourage Orthodox students to enlist by giving them the option to take a "decision year", during which they can leave their yeshiva and decide whether to enter the IDF for a short period of time, followed by reserve duty; enlist in alternative national service; or return to their studies. For the past three years, the Court has been considering a petition filed by the Movement for the Quality of Government in Israel seeking to declare the law unconstitutional. The group would like to see Orthodox students subject to the draft in the same manner that all others are. The government says that more time is needed to see if the law achieves its goal.
Everyone concedes that the decision year option, so far, has been a failure. Yeshivas do not publicize it, students do not know about it, and an alternative civil national service program has still not been created. In 3 years, only 31 students have been inducted into the military. Another 178 are in the process of being drafted and 48 are waiting to be assigned to the alternative civil national service. They were all part of the 1,115 students who took advantage of the decision year. Currently 41,000 yeshiva students remain exempt from service, a 35% increase since 1998.
The Tal Law was supposed to encourage Orthodox students to enlist by giving them the option to take a "decision year", during which they can leave their yeshiva and decide whether to enter the IDF for a short period of time, followed by reserve duty; enlist in alternative national service; or return to their studies. For the past three years, the Court has been considering a petition filed by the Movement for the Quality of Government in Israel seeking to declare the law unconstitutional. The group would like to see Orthodox students subject to the draft in the same manner that all others are. The government says that more time is needed to see if the law achieves its goal.
Everyone concedes that the decision year option, so far, has been a failure. Yeshivas do not publicize it, students do not know about it, and an alternative civil national service program has still not been created. In 3 years, only 31 students have been inducted into the military. Another 178 are in the process of being drafted and 48 are waiting to be assigned to the alternative civil national service. They were all part of the 1,115 students who took advantage of the decision year. Currently 41,000 yeshiva students remain exempt from service, a 35% increase since 1998.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)